or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 332

post #4966 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

What does a government that poisons its own people do? Oh that's right, nothing. You can't do anything to it.

We can all look forward to the upcoming Michael Moore movie on it.
post #4967 of 5454
Not that stupid. wink.gif


post #4968 of 5454

A friend from high school shared Robert Reich's post.  It made me laugh because this kid, coming from a solid middle or upper-middle class household, is the laziest kid I've ever known.  He failed multiple high school classes, and failed out of half a dozen colleges because he just didn't show up to class.  Now he works at an outlet mall selling shoes and hangs out with kids in HS/college.


 

Quote:

If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and who understand that the political-economic system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, what are you going to do? You’re going to be attracted either to:

(1) an authoritarian son-of-a-bitch who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and creating “great” jobs in America, who sounds like he won’t let anything or anybody get in his way, and who’s so rich he can’t be bought off, or

(2) a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for fifty years, who won’t take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots “political revolution” to regain control over our democracy and economy.

In other words, either a dictator who promises to wrest power back to the people, or a movement leader who asks us to join together to wrest power back to the people.

Does this explain what's happening?

 

post #4969 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Are razors for men and women the same?  It wouldn't be my lead example.

The blades are, but for women, the cartridges tend to be wide, making it very difficult for a man to shave the hair just below the nose.
post #4970 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcaimen View Post


NPR had a bit on this. Basically when stuff like this happens now, everyone is afraid it's going to turn into another Waco.
post #4971 of 5454

I can't copy the image, but apparently US history = white history = white privilege.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBGRQsQzf9Q/

post #4972 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I can't copy the image, but apparently US history = white history = white privilege.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBGRQsQzf9Q/

That Instagram post, no matter how shitty its supporters are, does have a point though. US history aside, the only other history we learned in school was about general European/Western civilization. It does make sense as obviously the majority of our common culture, government, and people are derived from that source, but it wasn't until much later in life that I recall learning anything about the histories of Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.
post #4973 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post


That Instagram post, no matter how shitty its supporters are, does have a point though. US history aside, the only other history we learned in school was about general European/Western civilization. It does make sense as obviously the majority of our common culture, government, and people are derived from that source, but it wasn't until much later in life that I recall learning anything about the histories of Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.

 

Throughout my elementary and secondary education, we spent almost all of history classes on one of the following:
1. Colonial times (and some on the Magna Carta)

2. American Revolution

3. Civil War and Reconstruction

 

We never made it to WW2 or beyond.  So it is true we didn't cover any other country other than tangentially England, France, and Mexico (related to the expansion of the US).  We did spend time on all the different immigrants and when/how they came to America.  It was Caucasian-centric because the founding of the US was as such.  It wasn't until HS that world history was even an option.

 

The question is: given limited amounts of time in school, how is it best to allocate?  What should we cut to add more world history? 

post #4974 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

That Instagram post, no matter how shitty its supporters are, does have a point though. US history aside, the only other history we learned in school was about general European/Western civilization. It does make sense as obviously the majority of our common culture, government, and people are derived from that source, but it wasn't until much later in life that I recall learning anything about the histories of Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.

I agree there's an underlying point or even points. I think even in Euro/Western civilization there are strains where one could easily say what's taught has been "Americanized." I'm willing to bet things like the Mongols or Islamic invasions are not part of the curriculum, English history more than say German or Hungarian, etc. Most history taught in the US (and Canada but not as much due to the French influence) is more along the lines of how "Anglo-Saxon culture" (whatever that really means) got to the point in the Americas that it's at.

Also, as you point out, pretty understandable.
post #4975 of 5454
Getting a 13-16 year old interested in any history is a near-impossible feat.
post #4976 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Throughout my elementary and secondary education, we spent almost all of history classes on one of the following:

1. Colonial times (and some on the Magna Carta)
2. American Revolution
3. Civil War and Reconstruction

We never made it to WW2 or beyond.  So it is true we didn't cover any other country other than tangentially England, France, and Mexico (related to the expansion of the US).  We did spend time on all the different immigrants and when/how they came to America.  It was Caucasian-centric because the founding of the US was as such.  It wasn't until HS that world history was even an option.

The question is: given limited amounts of time in school, how is it best to allocate?  What should we cut to add more world history? 

Content-wise, most don't remember historical information from the previous semester, let alone into adulthood. Most curricula focus mainly on critical analysis, organizational, historical thinking, ethics, etc. rather than directly on drill n' kill content (although content is the vehicle to teach those skills).
post #4977 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post

Getting a 13-16 year old interested in any history is a near-impossible feat.

No way, history was the only subject I even liked as a kid. I would literally read history books on my own from second grade on. I also was obsessed with Jacque Cousteau and had an impressive fossil collection including a velociraptor claw.
post #4978 of 5454
Wow! You guys were deprived. In sixth grade we studied a lot of world history. I still remembered studying Japan. It must have been seventh grade when some time was spent on India. We had to learn some of the religions there to understand why India's history was shaped the way it was. Some years later teaching religion of any kind for any reason in public schools was outlawed and the teachers said, "How can we teach history?" We got all these anti-religious laws in the US that have gone overboard. These laws are always changing. To understand history you have to understand the religions that came and left and the new ones that replaced them. So much history was because of religion, and, of course, old fashioned greed.
post #4979 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcaimen View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by SixOhNine View Post

Is point of this is that law enforcement in Oregon isn't violent enough?
it seems the point is to go to a protest well-armed.
post #4980 of 5454

Shared Senator Warren's FB status:

 

 

Quote:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

 

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

 

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

 

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.